Explain Socialism to Me

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]jkeating wrote:

[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[/quote]

never succeeded anywhere? China, the biggest economy in the world, vietnam, cuba, and Laos. are all Marxist/Leninist socialist countries and Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Libya, Sri lanka, Syria and Tanzania, all make constitutional references towards socialism. Define succeed[/quote]

Top 10 GDP per capita (in order from 2009 IMF)
Qatar
Luxemourg
Norway
Brunei
United States
Switzerland
Hong Kong
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria

down near 100 is China (the biggest economy in the world lolololol) at 97 … you might want to reevaluate your argument…[/quote]

Lets not forget that he’s just plain wrong about China anyway

[/quote]

I’d invest my money in China. They are communist in name only, though. The government has backed off substantially and , as a result , have less regulation than us.

122

You think that the left-leaning or outright leftist politicians in Congress and the White House don’t want government involvement in personal use of drugs?

123

ryan p mccarter,

What country, now or in the past, has most exuded these socialist qualities you speak of?

124

Socialism is the political expression of unselfishness (altruism). It therefore drains the productive for the benefit of those who aren’t. It is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.

The productive resent this, so the government must increasingly use more and more violence and intimidation to extract wealth from those who produce. Socialism MUST evolve therefore into some sort of totalitarianism.

Because humans embrace altruism, they therefore deem accepting an absolute tyranny, kind of like how the Dems deem a bill as passed w/o voting on it.

125

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
ryan p mccarter,

What country, now or in the past, has most exuded these socialist qualities you speak of?[/quote]

None completely, just as none has exhibited all of the qualities that Libertarians would like to see in a society.

The USSR was a pioneer in developmental economics and the use of economic planning to achieve goals efficiently, but had a rather uninspiring human rights record.

Cuba is a pretty decent example of a socialist mixed economy, demonstrating how socialization, is not necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.

And the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War are an excellent example of cooperatives and a less hierarchical structure.

126

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Socialism is the political expression of unselfishness (altruism). It therefore drains the productive for the benefit of those who aren’t. It is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.[/quote]

It is no such thing. You don’t work, you don’t eat. I’m not sure how else to say this so that you can understand it.

127

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
ryan p mccarter,

What country, now or in the past, has most exuded these socialist qualities you speak of?[/quote]

None completely, just as none has exhibited all of the qualities that Libertarians would like to see in a society.

The USSR was a pioneer in developmental economics and the use of economic planning to achieve goals efficiently, but had a rather uninspiring human rights record.

Cuba is a pretty decent example of a socialist mixed economy, demonstrating how socialization, is not necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.

And the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War are an excellent example of cooperatives and a less hierarchical structure.
[/quote]

I think the main predictor of a countries health is how happy their people are. I think Canada and Denmark have happier citizens as a whole than the US. Those are actuals. But you are chasing an ideal. A far out fantasy really… and I don’t see it happening unless we change human genetics or we go through a period of conconsciousness raising. Humans are just not set up for the society that you speak of.

Would you agree? Do you honestly see your ideal coming to fruition? If so, how?

also, have you been to Cuba?
What socialist countries have you been to?
just curious.

128

Not at all.

Not soon.

Through a revolution, of course.

[quote]also, have you been to Cuba?
What socialist countries have you been to?
just curious.[/quote]

I have been to no socialist countries. Have you?

129

I just remembered, to anyone who is curious about Marx’s political economy, the following is a series of free online lectures given by David Harvey. He is a professor at CUNY who has been teaching a one semester course on Marx’s Capital vol. I for over two decades. The lectures are long (1.5-2 hours), but if you’re interested, you’ll probably come away with your question answered. The lectures roughly match up to chapters in the book.

130

[quote]harduser wrote:

But, thinking about the cooperative bakery, if it really works that well, shouldn’t such communes already exist even in a free market? The owner is a nice guy, he is familiar with socialism, doesn’t want the profit and tries to create his own commune. Because he won’t put the profit into his own pocket, he will be able to pay the bakers more. Because he pays more than competitors, he should get the best bakers, because they want money. Without using all the money earned for his own personal use, but using it for the bakery, he should out-compete other businesses and soon dominate the market. Why hasn’t this happened? Hasn’t anyone figured this out or maybe it just doesn’t work like that in real life? [/quote]

Ay, theres the rub!

131

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]harduser wrote:

But, thinking about the cooperative bakery, if it really works that well, shouldn’t such communes already exist even in a free market? The owner is a nice guy, he is familiar with socialism, doesn’t want the profit and tries to create his own commune. Because he won’t put the profit into his own pocket, he will be able to pay the bakers more. Because he pays more than competitors, he should get the best bakers, because they want money. Without using all the money earned for his own personal use, but using it for the bakery, he should out-compete other businesses and soon dominate the market. Why hasn’t this happened? Hasn’t anyone figured this out or maybe it just doesn’t work like that in real life? [/quote]

Ay, theres the rub!
[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, a socialist businessman starts his cooperative, he pays more to do workers, therefore gets the best workers, therefore offers the best service, therefore gets even more money to pay more to the workers etc. He should be able to do it in a free market. If it works as well as it should in theory, he could show everyone based on the example of his commune how good it is and I’m sure more people will start seeing how good it is. Why hasn’t this been done? Isn’t there a single socialist businessman? They should be dominating the free market and out-competing everyone. Or doesn’t it simply work like that? What am I missing?

132

[quote]harduser wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]harduser wrote:

But, thinking about the cooperative bakery, if it really works that well, shouldn’t such communes already exist even in a free market? The owner is a nice guy, he is familiar with socialism, doesn’t want the profit and tries to create his own commune. Because he won’t put the profit into his own pocket, he will be able to pay the bakers more. Because he pays more than competitors, he should get the best bakers, because they want money. Without using all the money earned for his own personal use, but using it for the bakery, he should out-compete other businesses and soon dominate the market. Why hasn’t this happened? Hasn’t anyone figured this out or maybe it just doesn’t work like that in real life? [/quote]

Ay, theres the rub!
[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, a socialist businessman starts his cooperative, he pays more to do workers, therefore gets the best workers, therefore offers the best service, therefore gets even more money to pay more to the workers etc. He should be able to do it in a free market. If it works as well as it should in theory, he could show everyone based on the example of his commune how good it is and I’m sure more people will start seeing how good it is. Why hasn’t this been done? Isn’t there a single socialist businessman? They should be dominating the free market and out-competing everyone. Or doesn’t it simply work like that? What am I missing?[/quote]

this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.

The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.

133

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmmm… so now socialism is supposedly a mix of socialism and capitalism, with capitalism being okay if it’s small enough and the socialists deem that you earned your capital with your work. (Does business management count as work, or only hand labor?)

So in this new version you can own the means of production unless the socialists think it has grown too much, and then you cannot own the bakery anymore. Instead the folk that have been doing the routine hand work there are supposed to own it, or socialists as a whole.

But what if you don’t want to give it over when it is “too big” and employs “too many” people? How will they take it from you if not by government force backed by guns? Perhaps mob rule using fists and clubs?

Precisely how can socialism work except as theft, by those who did not create wealth, from those who do, by violence or threat of violence?

Explain, please. I started the bakery myself, using money I’d earned at other jobs. I did all the work: I earned enough money to expand and hire a worker. This process continued and now my bakery is the size that Marx had in mind. I don’t want to and don’t agree to lose ownership.

Explain how it comes to belong to “the people” or “the workers” save by force.[/quote]

There is no “too big.” If you earn money through work, you can dispose of it in any way you wish. See my post to Orion.

Socialism, so far as I know, has never advocated (outside of some fringe groups) the total and utter socializaation of every single thing. It is about the recognition of what is properly social and what is not.

Smaller businesses and independent producers would gradually become obsolete. There is no need to abolish them.[/quote]

What exactly is properly social? Who gets to decide this? Why?

So, socialism is the abollishment of competition?[/quote]

Food supplies would be one example of something which is properly social. Food comes from the land, which no human had any hand in creating, and so not only is the claim to a piece of land by one individual fallacious, but they should not be permitted to control an important resource for the purpose of profit-making.[/quote]

But what about the improvement of said land that yeilds higher volume of said food? Does the human then have claim to the land that he manipulated to produce more for the benefit of everyone who can buy it? Is it fair to not reward that person for his hard work?

If they didn’t work for profit which would allow this person to hire people to cultivate the land he improved which in turn would free him up to improve more, what would motivate this person to innovate?

134

[quote]florelius wrote:

The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. [/quote]

You see?

Just as I said, you socialists are, when it comes down to it, thieves taking by armed force. What, everyone is going to want to give up their businesses and property and do so voluntarily? No, you advocate taking it by violence, often with killing, or threat of violence.

(Name another method of taking where the owner does not want to hand over his property.)

Was it you or another that claimed socialism doesn’t need government, though this force must be exerted and/or credibly threatened?

If not government exerting this force, then what? A mob of you socialists with fists and clubs and perhaps more?

135

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]harduser wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]harduser wrote:

But, thinking about the cooperative bakery, if it really works that well, shouldn’t such communes already exist even in a free market? The owner is a nice guy, he is familiar with socialism, doesn’t want the profit and tries to create his own commune. Because he won’t put the profit into his own pocket, he will be able to pay the bakers more. Because he pays more than competitors, he should get the best bakers, because they want money. Without using all the money earned for his own personal use, but using it for the bakery, he should out-compete other businesses and soon dominate the market. Why hasn’t this happened? Hasn’t anyone figured this out or maybe it just doesn’t work like that in real life? [/quote]

Ay, theres the rub!
[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, a socialist businessman starts his cooperative, he pays more to do workers, therefore gets the best workers, therefore offers the best service, therefore gets even more money to pay more to the workers etc. He should be able to do it in a free market. If it works as well as it should in theory, he could show everyone based on the example of his commune how good it is and I’m sure more people will start seeing how good it is. Why hasn’t this been done? Isn’t there a single socialist businessman? They should be dominating the free market and out-competing everyone. Or doesn’t it simply work like that? What am I missing?[/quote]

this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.

The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]

So you are saying that communes cannot compete in a free market?

Why would we want less competitive companies?

136

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The second part of your post seems to be based on some mysterious idea that I would like to regulate interpersonal relationships.[/quote]

You do. You just do not realize it. There is no such thing as a non-interpersonal relationship.

The degree of intimacy or familiarity in a relationship does not change its value to society as a whole. Even relationships are subjectively valued.

Furthermore, you do not understand there is no group of people better capable than the market to direct production precisely because the market is nothing more than relationships.

137

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Since I apparently don’t get it and some of our members on here claim that socalism is the way I figure I would start this thread so that they can clearly describe how their system would work.[/quote]

Socialism is moral cannibalism, wherein the victims pay bribes in order to produce.

Eventually, either the socialist society runs out of victims or the victims flee (Atlas Shrugged). In either case, collapse is inevitable. A society of too many parasites (like today) always collapses.
[/quote]

Socialism is moral cannibalism in which those who believe in right and wrong are roasted on a spit and have their… wait, what?

138

Socialism will never work in a society that is retarded.

Capitalsim will never work in a society that is immoral.

There is no cure for people being people.

139

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Capitalsim will never work in a society that is immoral.
[/quote]

Capitalism allows the immoral people to be justly punished.

In fact it is socialism that protects the immoral.

140

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Capitalsim will never work in a society that is immoral.
[/quote]

Capitalism allows the immoral people to be justly punished.

In fact it is socialism that protects the immoral.[/quote]

And where did you hear this shit? It amazes me you say this shit like it is written in the BIBLE